Some basic facts about PERA

Mike Rosenâs columns have repeatedly criticized the Colorado Public Employeesâ Retirement Association (PERA). Rosen makes good points about assumed investment return rates, benefit formulas based only on recent salary, and benefit increases that assumed high investment returns of 1980s and 1990s would continue. Unfortunately, he embeds his valid points in articles that are hyperpartisan and that ignore basic facts about PERA.

PERA is a âdefined benefitâ program in which the benefit is set by formula and the employer takes the primary risk of investment performance. Benefits are deferred salary paid as an annuity, a legal commitment, not a âweâll pay you if we feel like itâ option. PERA members and employers do not pay into Social Security; this savings is the primary reason that PERA has been a cost-effective system for both employer and employee. However, it leaves PERA members without the Social Security safety net.

PERA benefits were increased at a time when Colorado employers were encouraging early retirement to lower labor costs and at a time when PERA was required by the state legislature to keep its then overfunded status below 105 percent.

Phillip Chapman, Fort Collins

This letter was published in the Aug. 19 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Everyone ignores basic facts. When the letter writer says “employer takes the primary risk” he ignores the “fact” that tax payers make up the difference. That is a big part of what Rosen is talking about in his recent article. As for not paying into SS, many of us would like that option, but as people working for private employers, we can access that option. Also, it IS defined benefit instead of a defined contribution. That’s why there is no flexibility in the program.

Tom

interesting, when did the “taxpayer” make up a PERA “difference”? I paid 16% of my monthly renumeration for 36 years ( my contract called for an 8% to 8% match from my employer which is clearly a part of my contracted renumeration). The point to these pensions is to not turn our elderly into dependent paupers. Meanwhile General Electric does not pay taxes for me to steal as a PERA member, they get “breaks” and leave Colorado.

thor

We vote on tax increases all of the time to help prop up PERA. At least we do in Jeffco.

tomfromthenews

I can’t recall a single tax-increase ballot issue EVER in Jeffco with the word “PERA” anywhere in the title or text.

thor

You probably didn’t read the text. But any school bills include funding PERA. I don’t believe you even looked at any or you wouldn’t be questioning the fact that it has happened. Also, mill levies go to fund schools and often include propping up PERA.

tomfromthenews

If this is true, why is it bad? “Mill levies go to fund schools”, and the public employees are what make the public schools possible. The employees ARE the public schools you support with mill levies. Why wouldn’t you support a living wage and reasonable benefits and retirement, considering their relatively lower salaries and the service they provide society?

Tom

I really get tired of hearing the same old horse puckey from “good old” Mike Rosen. He lost his own shirt making bad financial decisions and so he has fixated on PERA. PERA will continue to do well because it does not decide investment strategy on the golf course, among a number of other reasons. Sad to see a fellow DU graduate having to beat up on public servants to lick his wounds. He clearly got suckered by his golf and investment pals. He should find somewhere else to place blame, like himself.

The Denver Post really needs to find some new conservative pundits. Old Rosen is locked into his private little zone needs to go and live off of his “investments”. He is starting to look like a Denver Post Charity case.

thor

Tom , Rosen has been talking about PERA long before he had trouble with an investment. Luckily for Mike, he didn’t put all of his eggs in one basket like you apparently have. Also, do you really think the payoff from the Post is why Mike wants to be printed? Not at all. Not at all. He wants to get his message out and it is working because you read it, didn’t you.

tomfromthenews

People who don’t get PERA wish they did. They’re just jealous and resentful of their own life decisions. Want PERA-level benefits? Get a job in the public sector. If you don’t, stop whining.

thor

Not a bit jealous, even of my friends who are getting PERA benefits. That is a dumb assertion. This isn’t about jealousy, but about over-promising and under-funding. You deserve your retirement, as do I. But you don’t deserve lavish benefits and neither do I.

tomfromthenews

What are those “lavish benefits”? Since I pay for my own medical, dental, and vision insurance, and since according to you I deserve my retirement, just what is it that you think I don’t deserve?

thor

No one deserves a retirement based on an average of the last 3 years of employment where someone can move up to the highest paying position instead of an average of all the years of employment.

tomfromthenews

Well, which is it? Either I deserve my retirement or I don’t. And, by the way, it is not based on an average of the last three years, but rather the three highest average salaried years, which is usually the last three years, but not always. And like I said before, PERA does not pay for my medical, dental, or vision benefits in retirement; I do.

I know how hard I worked for 28 years, and all the thousands of dollars I paid for further education along the way. I think I deserve every penny I get in retirement.

thor

Just like pete, you misrepresent what I write. Not a good debating point but one, I’m sure, that you feel is effective. I didn’t say you don’t deserve your retirement. And all you did was clarify my point about the average of three years, which makes it even worse than I portrayed. Bottom line, even if you pay for your medical, dental and vision in retirement, you have a better deal than I will have. Cry me a river, but I do not feel bad about the few expenses that you will pay. You do deserve what you get. And you would deserve what you get if it was less than you are getting. But PREA is still over-promised and under-funded.

tomfromthenews

But, thor, I receive one of those retirements that you claim “no one deserves” (see your previous comment)! I am not misrepresenting what you wrote, I am responding directly to it. And when you whine, “…you have a better deal than I will have”, you suggest envy or sour grapes at least, as I mentioned in my original comment in this string.

I have heard it all my career: “Gee, must be nice to be a teacher with all those summers off and that cushy retirement package”, to which I always replied, “Well, shut up and be a teacher then.” Do I even need to tell you their reply was always, “With such low pay? With all those students? With all that uncompensated time in the evenings and on weekendss? With all the crap you deal with from parents and politicians? No way!”

I’m done with this topic as should you be. I will not be lectured to by persons who know not what they are talking about.

thor

Tom, I’m so glad that you are done with the topic, since you said nothing to carry the conversation this far. Whine, sour grapes? Nice touch. Do you want me to be envious? I will be, if that makes you feel better. PERA is still over-promised and under-funded. Get it.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.